Court Claim Procedure point 5

Coupon-mad

You don't have to mention a lay rep in the WS, but when you both rock up you need The Lay Representatives (Rights of Audience) Order 1999 with you.

Here is a WS and skeleton argument I wrote the other day, where I've tried to separate the legal arguments into the skeleton so the WS is shorter & just confirms the facts/what is true/denied and what happened when. Also I think that one also argues about the illegality of signs in a more in depth way that some Judges might take on board but others might not.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/72047642#Comment_72047642

HTH

H_brogab

Thank you for that, Im starting to twitch now as this has to be in this week, will this be ok or do I need to add anything about the signage?




WITNESS STATEMENT SHOULD ONLY BE THE FACTS AND YOUR HONEST BELIEFS, NOT LEGAL ARGUMENTS:

In the matter of

parking company (Claimant)
v
******** (defendant)

Claim no:

Witness statement of Mrs *******, defendant


I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012

2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.

3. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.

4. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail, and in any event was not a matter where a registered keeper could be in any way legally liable as the law stood at that time. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.

5. Having not heard about this matter, suddenly I received a letter and a court claim out of the blue and I have researched this and discovered that parking company and Gladstones are issuing robo-claims for 'parking charges' in their thousands.

6. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report Parking company to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA.

7. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £227.73 for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.


8. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts.

9. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on XXX by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately


I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Dated xxxxxxxxxxx

Guys_Dad

I can not see from this the relevant timescale or dates, so am unable to quantify "out of the blue". Help the Judge. If event was pre POFA as per your point 4,, put the date in and remind that keeper liability only applies to cases after October 2012.

Coupon-mad

Thank you for that, Im starting to twitch now as this has to be in this week, will this be ok or do I need to add anything about the signage?

You could add that it is your honest belief that the signage was (unlit, it if was in hours of darkness, and) in small print, not prominent like the signs were in the Parking Eye v Beavis case, and as such the driver cannot have agreed a contract.

But you already have that in your skeleton argument with your evidence as you listed before so in the WS, you don't need to repeat legal arguments again in the WS.

H_brogab

It was post pofa, nowhere on the ntk does it mention pofa, it gives me the option to pay or name the driver. I believe it's non compliant because there is no observed time, just the time issued so was hoping that is sufficient to render it non compliant, hope I'm not barking up the wrong tree here. Should I amend point 4?
Also the signage at the entrance refers you to other signs located inside the car park which from my research reading around the forum makes it an offer to treat, the other signs state permit holders only so I believe they are prohibitive and do not offer a contract. Also the £100 charge is hidden within the small print unlike the sign in the beavis case. The ticket was issued during daytime in summer so can't claim it was unlit.
Should I remove point 4 and swap it with the point on signage contained in my other ws?

Coupon-mad

nowhere on the ntk does it mention pofa,

It doesn't have to 'mention POFA' but it does have to mention and warn of keeper liability.

And it would have to state the wording needed from paragraph 8 (windscreen PCN first) or para 9 (postal PCN). One of those is to specify the 'period of parking' so if that is not specified you can certainly put the claimant on the spot - a Judge might think it's unimportant but you never know and 'keeper liability' is down to the claimant to prove.

I would not remove the entire point #4 unless you DID appeal. I would remove this phrase of course as this is about pre-POFA PCNs only: 'and in any event was not a matter where a registered keeper could be in any way legally liable as the law stood at that time.'

I would go to town about the small print and prohibitive signs, that goes into your skeleton argument of the legal case ans a piece of evidence will be the PCM v Bull & others case about forbidding signage not making any offer (get that transcript from the Parking Prankster's 'Case Law' pages and read it to understand how it fits).

Also remember that in the POFA Sch4, the entire idea of liability depends first on the existence of a 'relevant contract' (signage terms) and 'relevant obligation' (can't flow from a forbidding sign!) and 'adequate notice of the parking charge' (the signs again, with the charge in large lettering). Use the Beavis case sign in your evidence as a comparison with UKCPM's woeful & wordy cluttered old sign.

H_brogab

I will be up tonight reading parking prankster so we are fully armed and go over the pofa to see if there is anything else missing from the ntk, and I have printed a copy of the Parking eye v Beavis sign, in the meantime is this ok to submit, it needs to be done by friday? Have I made enough fuss about the signs?




In the matter of


Parking (Claimant)
v
******** (defendant)
Claim no:
Witness statement of Mrs *******, defendant

I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.
In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.

1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012


2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Parking company to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.


3. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name any of them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.


4. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail and no adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.


5. Having not heard about this matter, suddenly I received a letter and a court claim out of the blue and I have researched this and discovered that Euro Parking Services LTD and Gladstones are issuing robo-claims for 'parking charges' in their thousands.


6. The signage at the car park blah blah does not form a contract. The entrance signage is an ‘offer to treat’ and the signage inside the car park is prohibitive. The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge and was never 'bound to' have been seen, as in the ‘Beavis’ case.
Furthermore the signs are classified in planning law as an advertisement, by virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)
(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) it is a criminal offence to display this kind of advertisement in contravention of the Regulations. There is no planning permission in place for these signs.


7. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report Parking company to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA.


8. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £227.73 for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.

9. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts.


10. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on such a date by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately
I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.


Signed xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dated xxxxxxxxxxx

H_brogab

Ive been doing some reading around (here and parking prankster) and added another point, number 10 and also added to point 11, am I barking up the right tree




In the matter of


Parking (Claimant)


v


me (defendant)


Claim no:





Witness statement of me defendant


I am the Defendant in this matter, I am unrepresented, with no experience of Court procedures. If I do not set out documents in the way that the Claimant may do, I trust the Court will excuse my inexperience.


In this Witness statement, the facts and matters stated are true and within my own knowledge, except where indicated otherwise.


1. Whilst I was the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned, there is no evidence of the driver. The claimant has issued a notice to keeper which is not compliant with the strict requirements of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 as it fails to show any period of parking as per paragraph 8 (2)c PoFA 2012


2. The Defendant neither admits nor denies being the driver at the time of the supposed event, and therefore puts Parking to strict proof that any contract can exist between the Claimant and themselves.


3. At the time in their notice to driver was issued it is possible for a number of people to have been the driver, but I have no obligation to name any of them to a private parking firm. It remains the burden of the Claimant to prove their case.


4. There was no requirement upon me as keeper to respond to what appeared to be junk mail. No adverse inference can be drawn from my lawful decision to ignore the colourful letter, impersonating a parking ticket yet with no basis in law.


5. Having not heard about this matter, suddenly I received a letter and a court claim out of the blue and I have researched this and discovered that Parking and Gladstones are issuing robo-claims for 'parking charges' in their thousands


6. The signage at the car park does not form a contract. The entrance signage is an ‘offer to treat’ and the signage inside the car park is prohibitive. The parking charge is hidden within the small print, it is not a clear and prominent charge and was never 'bound to' have been seen, as in the ‘Beavis’ case.


Furthermore the signs are classified in planning law as an advertisement, by virtue of Regulation 30 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)


(England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) it is a criminal offence to display this kind of advertisement in contravention of the Regulations. There is no planning permission in place for these signs.


7. I am no more liable now than I was then, but this unwarranted harassment and baseless litigation has caused me significant alarm and distress, such that I intend to report Parking company to the Information Commissioner for misuse of my data, obtained from the DVLA.


8. My DVLA data was supplied for the single strict purpose of enquiring who was driving, not for suing me as if I can now be held liable, in the hope I will not defend/will have lost the paperwork/will have moved house, or even better, that I will be so scared that I will pay over £227.73 for what was apparently an unproven £100 charge, allegedly incurred by another party, if incurred at all.


9. It is apparent from court records reported in the public domain that this Claimant has been obtaining payments from keepers under false pretences - using the court as a cheap form of debt collection from the wrong 'registered keeper' parties - and has obtained default CCJs in the hundreds, despite never complying with the POFA 2012 and even bringing pre-POFA cases to the Courts.


10. The claimant may try to rely upon ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, yet the Defendant would like to point out that this car park does not offer a free parking period therefore Parking Eye Ltd v Beavis case does not apply.


11. The particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. The claimant has failed to properly respond to my request made on this date by royal mail postal service, requesting any documentation and relevant contracts with the land owners that allow the claimant to issue claims upon the landowner’s behalf. My request was not actioned appropriately. . I believe some more cases have been thrown out because pre-action protocol has not been followed, and/or the claims made have been incoherent. Gladstones are surely aware of this and therefore to continue with this case constitutes unreasonable behaviour.





I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Guys_Dad

I repeat that your witness statements would be enhanced by including some dates to give the judge some idea of the passage of time between events.

You use the phrase "out of the blue" so define it.

H_brogab

Thank you, I think I must have misunderstood but how is this?






5. Having not heard about this matter, suddenly on (this date) I received a letter purporting to be a letter before claim which I responded to on (this date) and pointed out that their letter was not compliant with Pre-Action Conduct, then on (this date) a court claim arrived out of the blue, I have researched this and discovered that Parking company and Gladstones are issuing robo-claims for 'parking charges' in their thousands